BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Advanced Learning Loans

John Hayes: Today we lay regulations before Parliament which will allow adults over 24 to benefit from loans for fees in further education: 24+ advanced learning loans. The regulations are made under the same powers as the Education (Student Support) Regulations, which underpin the higher education student support system. From the 2013-14 academic year, loans will be available for learners aged 24 and above studying courses at level 3 and above, replacing grant funding for this group as we focus our state investment on those under 24 years of age, those without basic skills, and those seeking work.
	The intention to offer loans in further education was confirmed in November 2010, as part of the Government’s strategy “Skills for Sustainable Growth”. A public consultation followed in 2011, leading to the publication of impact assessments. Implementation is well under way, and these regulations are the final step in what has been a full and open process.
	This is a progressive system. Learners will pay nothing up front, removing one of the main barriers to participation in training that adults commonly report. Repayment will be linked to income so there is nothing to pay until the learner is earning more than £21,000. Rates of interest will be lower than anything in the high street; and outstanding balances will be written off after 30 years.
	Research published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shows that 74% of people say they might, probably would or definitely would undertake learning following the introduction of loans. When the terms and conditions are explained, they become even more positive. This is why, in our impact assessment, we conclude that with clear and transparent communication to learners, we expect full take-up of the available funding for loans.
	However, this is the first time that loans have been available in further education, and we want to ensure that appropriate safeguards for learners are in place. Our commitment to social mobility, and the critical contribution of further education to it—our mission that learning should drive social purpose and serve the common good—remains unabridged, undiluted.
	In this spirit, I can therefore confirm that we will put in place an extensive and substantial range of support measures alongside the introduction of loans. The package will comprise:
	An offer to individuals taking access to higher education courses that on completion of their higher education programme, the Student Loans Company will write off the amount outstanding on the loan for their access course. Access
	courses are designed to help those with low qualifications but high ambitions progress into higher education:, it is our duty to support those learners.
	A £50 million bursary fund over two years, disbursed by colleges and training organisations. This will help vulnerable learners such as those with learning difficulties or disabilities, parents who need help with child-care, and ex-military personnel. The level of the bursary fund will be kept under review so we continue to provide the right level of support for those who need it.
	Additional information, advice and guidance for adults who are uncertain about loans, provided by the National Careers Service, including a targeted face-to-face session—a “learning healthcheck”—with a careers adviser for older adults who research published by BIS in May suggest are less likely to respond positively to the idea of taking out a loan.
	We have been working with the Association of Colleges, the 157 Group of Colleges, and the National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education to develop this package. They are supportive of this additional offer and we will continue to work with them on the detail.
	The Government will ensure that potential adult learners who are eligible have the clear information they need about 24+ advanced learning loans. Alongside this, we will align our other resources, such as capital funding, to ensure we can maintain and grow participation in STEM programmes—through investment in infrastructure to provide the tools for learning, and stop costs rising—working with the Sector Capital Group to determine the best means of doing so. It is vital that we continue to drive sustainable growth as well as social mobility.
	The existing policy, inherited from the previous Administration, requires the student to contribute in cash before they start the course; loans will ensure that fees are no longer a barrier to access. We want to build an FE system fit for purpose for the future and loans in FE will help to deliver capacity. In a tighter spending environment, it is right to focus available funds on 19 to 24-year-olds who did not complete their education at school, those without basic skills, and those seeking employment; and it is right to maintain access to learning for people outside these groups.
	Colleges and training organisations are preparing now, so that as many adults as possible can benefit from 24+ advanced learning loans when the application system opens on 1 April 2013. I urge you to give the sector your support, as I have given my own, as they manage this important change.

Regional Growth Fund

Mark Prisk: The regional growth fund is an important part of the Government’s “Plan for Growth” and supports two of the main ambitions:
	To make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business;
	To encourage investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy.
	The following details will update you on the current round, as well as progress from the previous two rounds.
	Round 3
	Round 3 for bidding to the regional growth fund (RGF) closed on 13 June and the team received 414 bids with a value of over £2.7 billion. This shows that the fund is relevant, popular and that businesses are looking for opportunities to grow.
	A breakdown of bids by region, and by type (programme or project) is provided at annex A.
	During the summer all bids will be appraised by officials, the independent advisory panel and the ministerial group. After an initial assessment, Ministers will shortlist bids: those going forward to full appraisal will be visited by officials and those who are no longer in the running for funding will be notified immediately. Announcements of the successful bidders will be in the autumn.
	A significant improvement to round 3 will be that the contracting process timeline has been defined—the timings have been fixed so that the terms of a conditional offer must be agreed within three months of the announcement, and bidders then have a further three months to complete due diligence.
	This means that bidders will sign a final offer within six months of Ministers deciding to support the bid.
	If the process takes longer than six months despite our best efforts, we reserve the right to withdraw the offer of funding.
	Rounds 1 and 2
	From the previous rounds, 176 successful bids have been conditionally allocated £1.4 billion.
	This translates into 237 final offer agreements because some bids comprise of multiple counterparties.
	Of the 237 agreements:
	110 (46.6%) have a final agreement in place, to a value of over £718 million. These projects are able to draw down their funding. These projects leverage over £3.7 billion of private sector investment.
	50 have agreed terms and conditions including leverage, funding and jobs—these will now proceed through due diligence and represent a further £1 billion of private sector investment.
	16 have withdrawn from the RGF process in total, which has released over £40 million to be recycled into the RGF. The additional companies to withdraw include: Vestas Technology UK Ltd, Aggregate Industries Ltd, Sirius Minerals and Shepherd Offshore Ltd. See annex B for full list.
	61 companies have received draft offers, but are still considering terms and conditions.
	My officials are writing to many of these 61 successful bidders, as progressing their bids is a priority. Projects and programmes where the terms and conditions have yet to be agreed, and where no reasons for the delay have been discussed, will be given a time limit to the conditional offer. This money is intended to be used to stimulate the economy and I am confident that if these bidders are unable to take it up at this time and create jobs, then we will be able to find good uses for it elsewhere.
	Some 139 (58.9%) projects have started, which is more than those with final offers. Some projects are able to start in advance of signing a final offer as even a conditional offer of Government support can safeguard jobs and unlock private sector investment. Examples of projects which have started:
	Getrag Ford in the north-west will use £3.4 million from the RGF to expand capacity for the production of B6 transmissions at the Halewood plant. The RGF investment will be supported by £28.3 million of private investment and will create and protect 120 jobs.
	Cornwall Deep Geothermal Energy Project in the south-west will use £6 million of RGF to drill the deepest onshore borehole in the UK to test the potential to site a geothermal plant near Redruth. If the tests are successful, £45 million of private investment has already been secured to drill a further
	two boreholes and construct a geothermal power plant. The project includes establishing a centre of research excellence in partnership with Exeter university and aims to create over 100 direct jobs and 1,500 indirect jobs.
	Birmingham Post Business Growth Fund in the west midlands, managed by Bournville college will make funding of £10,000 to £100,000 available for SMEs and start-ups, as up to 50% match funding for their investment. Each business supported will be provided with a mentor, as well as skills assessment and training. There will be an extensive media-led campaign with various events to raise awareness and engage the community. They will receive £5 million from RGF, supported by £750,000 of private investment and will aim to create 250 jobs.
	Value for money
	The NAO has recently reported on the RGF. It found that the average cost per job (£33,000) created by the RGF is in line with other similar funds while also recognising that the projects being supported will, in many cases, create wider benefits on top of the immediate employment boost (such as training spill-overs and economic and social infrastructure). The NAO report and Government response to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing held on 16 May can be seen online:
	http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/writev/104/m02.htm.
	The next update on RGF progress will be in October 2012.
	Annex A - Round 3 bidding data
	
		
			  Bids Value (£m) 
			 Programme 130 1497.52 
			 Project 284 1265.92 
			 Total 414 2763.44 
		
	
	
		
			  Bids Ask 
			  No. % £m % 
			 North East 72 17% 352 13% 
			 North West 77 19% 414 15% 
			 Yorkshire and The Humber 61 15% 345 12% 
			 East Midlands 38 9% 124 4% 
			 West Midlands 57 14% 410 15% 
			 Nationwide 27 7% 565 20% 
			 South East 25 6% 145 5% 
			 South West 41 10% 322 12% 
			 London 6 1% 26 1% 
			 East of England 10 2% 61 2% 
			 Total 414  2763.4437  
		
	
	Annex B—Withdrawn projects from rounds 1 and 2
	
		
			 1. Vestas Technology UK Ltd 
			 2. Sirius Minerals 
			 3. Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd 
			 4. Diodes Zetex Semiconductors Ltd 
			 5. CT8-W.D. Irwin & Sons 
			 6. Nissan UK P3 
			 7. Messier-Dowty Ltd 
			 8. T&N Plastics Limited 
			 9. Rapiscan Systems 
			 10. Zegen (Wilton) Limited 
			 11. Thales Properties Ltd (Leicester) 
			 12. Cumbrian Holdings 
		
	
	
		
			 13 Shepherd Offshore Limited 
			 14. Ames Goldsmith UK Ltd 
			 15. CE3-Conitech 
			 16. Aggregate Industries Ltd

TREASURY

Fiscal Sustainability Report

Danny Alexander: Today the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published its second fiscal sustainability report (FSR). This document meets their requirement to prepare an analysis of the sustainability of the public finances each financial year, and provides an important insight into the state of the public finances taking into account the significant impact of demographic change. The report was laid before Parliament earlier today and copies are available in the Vote Office.
	The FSR shows that, without additional policy change, an ageing population is projected to increase age-related spending by 5.0% of GDP between 2016-17 and 2061-62, as health, social care and pension expenditure become an ever larger proportion of total public spending and the economy. The OBR projections show that public sector net debt is expected to fall to a trough of 57% of GDP in the mid-2020’s, before rising to reach 89% of GDP in 2061-62 in the absence of further policy change.
	The Government are committed both to shoring up our fiscal position now and making it sustainable for the long term. The OBR analysis makes it clear that our medium-term consolidation plan is essential to restoring long-term sustainability in the public finances. They show that a deterioration in the primary balance in 2016-17 worth 1% of GDP could increase projected public sector net debt in 2061-62 to around 130% of GDP. This shows the scale of impact if the medium-term consolidation was not achieved.
	The OBR discusses the impact of changes to policy on their long-term projections. They show that excluding policy changes announced since the 2011 FSR and the new population projections, public sector net debt would have been projected to reach nearly 200% of GDP by 2061-62. They identify the additional spending reductions announced at autumn statement 2011 as one of the key factors in preventing this increase in projections, as well as highlighting the long-term decisions we have made in bringing forwards the state pension age increase to 67 and public service pension reforms.
	The FSR presents the first estimates for the savings delivered by our public service pension reforms. These independent projections show that net spending on public service pensions is projected to fall from 1.5% of GDP without reform to 0.9% with reform in 2061-62. The Government’s reforms will bring total spending on public service pensions in line with the long-run average over the last 40 years. This will save 40% of net expenditure by 2061-62, so freeing up funding for other services. The Treasury estimates that this represents around £430 billion of savings in current GDP terms over the next 50 years. This shows that the deals confirmed last week are good for taxpayers, as well as public sector workers who will
	continue to receive pensions that are among the very best available, providing a guaranteed pension level for all members.
	The long-term projections presented in this report also provide important context to ongoing debates about public service reform, such as on social care. The OBR’s projections suggest that spending on social care will increase substantially over the next 50 years as the UK’s population ages and it is clear that the UK will need to take into account the likely pressure on public services from demographic change as we consider reforms in this and other areas.
	We will bring forward the necessary legislation to reform public sector pensions in this parliamentary Session and set out proposals this autumn to ensure the state pension age is reviewed to take into account future changes in longevity. These and other decisions reflect the Government’s continuing commitment to make the right decisions for the long term, including for the long-term sustainability of the public finances.

DEFENCE

Charm-3 (Legal Review)

Nick Harvey: I informed the House on 31 October 2011 that I had commissioned officials to undertake a legal weapons review of our depleted uranium (DU) anti-armour tank rounds, known as Charm-3. Although Charm-3 was introduced before the Government were obliged to undertake such reviews, I ordered this review, as a special case, to address concerns that have been raised in Parliament and by civil society.
	The review is now complete and has concluded that Charm-3 is capable of being used lawfully by UK armed forces in an international armed conflict. Charm-3 is the only munition within the UK arsenal manufactured using DU. We judge this capability necessary in any land battle to defeat the armoured vehicles of an adversary state and no alternative tank round (using another metal or substance) has been shown to provide a comparable effect on target. It is self evident that use of Charm-3 will be limited to a war fighting role, specifically in tank battles, and likely therefore to be employed only in exceptional and limited circumstances.
	Legal weapon reviews are carried out in accordance with article 36 of the first protocol of 1977 additional to the Geneva conventions of 1949 (Additional Protocol I). Article 36 states:
	“In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a high contracting party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the high contracting party”.
	Such legal reviews are undertaken routinely in respect of weapon systems brought on to the UK inventory following UK ratification of additional protocol I, on 28 January 1998. The acquisition of Charm-3 pre-dates ratification and for that reason only, no review had been undertaken before now.
	The legal review process under article 36 of additional protocol I required the use of Charm-3 to be considered in the light of certain key legal principles, namely:
	Whether it is prohibited by any specific treaty provision;
	Whether it is of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury;
	Whether it is capable of being used discriminately;
	Whether it will cause long-term, widespread and severe damage to the natural environment;
	Current and possible future trends in international humanitarian law.
	The legal weapon review considered each of these points. The review itself comprises legal advice provided in confidence, but I wish to set out the rationale for reaching the judgment that the rounds are legal:
	The use of DU in weapon systems is not prohibited by any treaty provision.
	There have been extensive scientifically based studies, undertaken by the World Health Organisation in relation to the long-term environmental and other health effects allegedly attributable to the use of DU munitions. In the light of the reassuring conclusions drawn by such scientific studies, and noting the continuing military imperative underpinning retention of Charm-3 as a weapon system, it was concluded that use of Charm-3 does not offend the principle prohibiting superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering in armed conflict.
	Crew training, weapon design and automated targeting systems mean Charm-3 is capable of being used discriminately.
	Where DU ordnance residues have existed, in the aftermath of an armed conflict, annual potential radiation doses have been shown by scientific study to be well below the annual doses received by the general population from sources of natural radiation in the environment and far below the reference level recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a criterion to determine whether remedial action is necessary. An environmental footprint inevitably will be left by use of DU munitions but one where a credible and authoritative body of scientific evidence (drawn from both international and national sources) has demonstrated there is no proven link between exposure to DU and, neither, a significant risk to public health, nor, a significant risk of any long-term damage to the environment.
	Finally, it was concluded that DU continues to be a material of choice used by states in the manufacture of anti-armour munitions. To date no inter-state consensus has emerged that DU munitions should be banned and the available scientific evidence (developed in the aftermath of the Gulf war in 1991) continues to support the view held by the UK that such munitions can be retained for the limited role envisaged for their employment.
	The UK policy remains that DU can be used within weapons; it is not prohibited under current or likely future international agreements. Given the challenging situations in which we expect our service personnel to operate, it would be wrong to deny them legitimate and effective capabilities that can help them achieve their objectives as quickly and as safely as possible.

Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre

Peter Luff: The 2010 strategic defence and security review identified a number of Ministry of Defence (MOD) assets that would be considered for disposal. I would like to update the House on progress we have made on our commitment to sell the Marchwood sea mounting centre in Hampshire.
	Sea mounting activities are vital to meeting the UK’s military requirements and will remain so in future. Our personnel at Marchwood, including 17 Port and Maritime
	Regiment, deliver a key capability to our armed forces overseas and the centre provides a valuable training facility for them at home.
	Options for the sale of Marchwood have therefore been assessed with the continued availability of these capabilities in mind, including consideration of alternative UK locations from which sea mounting activities could be undertaken.
	Based on this work I can reaffirm the intention to sell Marchwood. However, our analysis has led us to conclude that the preferred option is to continue to meet the sea mounting requirement from the same site. This will ensure that the military outputs can still be met while allowing greater economic and commercial benefit to be realised from the site. In doing so we envisage a much closer relationship between the MOD and industry in delivering these capabilities from a privately owned sea mounting centre.
	MOD will now focus on developing the commercial proposal by the end of this year. Any sale will be dependent on the prevailing market conditions at the time, and the transaction will need to demonstrate that the required, assured defence capability can be delivered in a way which represents value for money.

Olympics Security (Military Support)

Philip Hammond: In my statements to the House on 15 December 2011 and 3 July this year, I set out the defence contribution to the safety and security of the Olympic and Paralympic games in support of the Home Office and Department for Culture Media and Sport. Elements of that support are now deploying and I am writing to update the House prior to the start of the games.
	RAF Typhoon aircraft have deployed to RAF Northolt; RAF Puma helicopters have arrived at Ilford Territorial Army Centre and ground-based air defence systems and air observers are beginning to deploy to their sites today, all to support the air security plan when the airspace restrictions over London come into force on 14 July.
	HMS Ocean will arrive on the Thames on 13 July with Royal Marines to provide security on the river and further helicopters to support both the air and Thames security plans.
	Other elements of support to police-led security will deploy at different stages between now and the start of the games, including a range of personnel, both regular and reservists, and other assets including HMS Bulwark and RFA Mounts Bay which will provide support in Weymouth bay. Along with an Olympic military contingency force, and enabling units, this support amounts to some 6,000 personnel.
	In my earlier statement to the House, on 15 December 2011, I said that we would also deploy, at peak, 7,500 personnel to support the London Organising Committee for the Olympic games’ venue security operation across the period of the games. These personnel have also begun to deploy to venues to support the rolling search and lock-down process between now and the start of the Olympics, alongside the police, the commercial security provider, G4S, and volunteers. As the venue security exercise has got under way, concerns have arisen
	about the ability of G4S to deliver the required number of guards for all the venues within the time scales available. Ministers have been monitoring this situation and, where necessary, preparing contingency measures. G4S has now agreed that it would be prudent to deploy additional military support to provide greater reassurance. The Home Secretary, the Culture Secretary and I have therefore agreed the deployment of a further 3,500 military personnel. This will bring the total number of military personnel, from all three services and including reservists, contributing to the safety and security of the games to 17,000. The chiefs of staff recognise the importance of the Olympic games and support this deployment, confirming that this deployment is feasible and will have no adverse impact on other operations.
	Ministers across Government recognise the burden that this additional short-notice deployment will impose upon individual service men and women and their families, especially over the summer holiday season. We will ensure that all those taking part receive their full leave entitlement, even if it has to be rescheduled, that no one is out of pocket due to cancelled personal arrangements and that all deployed personnel are appropriately supported.
	I can confirm that there remains no specific threat to the games. Nor is there an increased threat to the games. We are confident that the UK is ready and able to provide a safe and secure Olympic games for the whole world to enjoy.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Circuses (Wild Animals)

James Paice: On 1 March 2012, the Government set out their approach to the use of performing wild animals in travelling circuses in England.
	The Government have said they will pursue a ban on ethical grounds on wild animals performing in circuses. Today we are announcing that we are working on draft legislation, which will set out the exact details of that ban.
	We have said before that getting primary legislation right on such an emotive issue as this will take time, and we expect to be able to publish draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny later this session.
	We are laying draft regulations today to introduce a new licensing scheme that will protect the welfare of such animals while they are in use in travelling circuses.
	The regulations will be made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. They will safeguard the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses and ensure that they receive regular welfare inspections.
	In line with the 1 March statement, it is our intent that the regulations are in force from the start of the 2013 touring season.
	The public consultation on the licensing proposals closed on 25 April 2012. The analysis of responses and Government response have been published on DEFRA’s website.
	During the eight-week period of public consultation, DEFRA officials carried out further engagement with the circus industry, veterinary bodies and other interested parties.
	A period of “road-testing” of the draft welfare standards was undertaken. Road-testing involved multiple visits to circus sites by a DEFRA veterinary team to test the welfare standards alongside the public consultation. Findings have been used to refine the standards.
	A total of 236 formal responses to the consultation were received. Responses were generally supportive and the overarching conclusion is that our proposed licensing regime would be robust and workable, subject to careful consideration of the detailed points of feedback received. The analysis of responses and Government response sets out in detail how feedback has been used to improve the package.
	The main provisions of the regulations include:
	A requirement that any travelling circus in England that includes wild animals first obtains a licence from DEFRA;
	That a licence can only be obtained on payment of an administrative fee and circuses will also be liable for the cost of inspections;
	A requirement of an initial inspection before a licence can be issued;
	Provision for further inspections;
	That licences can be suspended or revoked; and
	Detailed licensing conditions covering all aspects of welfare in a travelling circus which must be met and adhered to.
	In addition to the core welfare standards which are included in the schedule to the regulations, detailed guidance on welfare standards will be revised and updated over the summer period, and take full account of feedback from the consultation.
	In line with the 1 March statement, formal inspections would be undertaken by Government-appointed vets before a licence may be issued or renewed. If a licence were issued, compliance checks would be carried out during the period of a licence, including a combination of announced and unannounced visits both to winter quarters and to tour sites.
	In conclusion, the new regulations will protect the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses in the intervening period before a ban can be brought into effect. We expect to publish draft legislation for a ban as soon as parliamentary time allows.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

General Affairs Council

David Lidington: I attended the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Luxembourg on 26 June.
	The GAC was chaired by the Danish EU presidency, Mr Nicolai Wammen, Minister for European Affairs. A provisional report of the meeting can be found at:
	http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/EN/genaff/131236.pdf
	Montenegro
	The first item discussed at the GAC was whether to open accession negotiations with Montenegro. Some member states had argued that this decision should be postponed pending further progress on improving rule of law issues, including the fight against corruption and
	organised crime. I agreed that these were valid concerns but argued that Montenegro had met the criteria set at the December 2011 European Council and that opening negotiations now was the best way to increase the EU’s leverage on the issues where further progress was needed. The GAC was able to agree to the opening of Montenegro’s accession negotiations and the European Council endorsed this decision on 29 June 2012, and negotiations were opened at an intergovernmental conference later that day.
	Multiannual Financial Framework
	The General Affairs Council had its final discussion, under the Danish presidency, on the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) for the period between 2014 and 2020. The discussion focused on the latest version of the “negotiating box”, of which I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. This discussion gave member states the last opportunity to address specific issues in the text before it went to the June European Council. There, leaders took stock of progress before the negotiations were taken over by the Cypriot presidency, which officially commenced on 1 July 2012.
	The negotiating box text contains positive language on the need to focus EU spending on areas that promote growth and explicitly states that
	“it is essential that the future MFF reflects the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path.”
	Less helpful parts of the text are the possible reform to own resources, including the rebate, and the possibility of a financial transaction tax.
	The UK Permanent Representative to the EU Sir Jon Cunliffe represented the UK on my behalf for this part of the discussion. He argued that the negotiating box still did not go far enough in reflecting the need for budgetary restraint. This sentiment was echoed by Ministers from the “likeminded group” on the budget. Sir Jon also argued that the UK would not agree to any changes to the UK rebate or any new own resources such as a financial transaction tax.
	Other Ministers, led by Polish Secretary of State for the EU, Piotr Serafin, argued that the negotiating box was unacceptable in its current form, in particular because of their objection to the inclusion of the proposed reverse safety net which could serve to cap structural and cohesion fund (SCF) receipts received by the newer member states to a percentage of their previous allocations.
	Although there are still elements to the negotiating box text that we are not satisfied with, overall we are content that it leans in the right direction. It has therefore been important to continue to be robust in what action needs to be taken going forwards, but also to consolidate the progress made so far. We have done this at both the GAC and the European Council, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister argued that despite the opposition from some member states, the European Council should welcome the progress achieved under the Danish presidency.
	Cohesion Policy
	The presidency sought a partial general approach on elements of the package of cohesion regulations. These were: on the rules for financial instruments; on the performance framework; and on proposals on revenue generating projects. There was some discussion on the technical elements of this package but the presidency was successful in getting broad agreement on all of
	the four blocks presented at the meeting: thematic concentration, financial instruments, revenue generating projects and performance framework.
	The agreement included an amendment tabled by the presidency to add a footnote to the European rural development fund (ERDF) article 4, in the thematic concentration block. This would make it clear that the issue of the percentages for concentration in the transition regions would be reviewed once further decisions were made in the context of the MFF.
	We also proposed a declaration on the need for better harmonisation between the rules of the funds of the common strategic framework for 2014 to 2020. In addition to France, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic who formally signed up to the declaration, Austria and the Commission also expressed their support during their interventions.
	European Semester
	The General Affairs Council agreed the set of country-specific recommendations that had been endorsed by Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) and Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) the previous week. Malta, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic all took to the floor to reiterate their particular concerns. The presidency was clear however that a qualified majority existed and so the recommendations were sent to the European Council without an in-depth discussion. The UK, however, maintains its parliamentary scrutiny reserve on this issue.
	June European Council
	There was also preparation for the June European Council, which had an extensive agenda covering growth, trade, the MFF, energy, enlargement, justice and home affairs issues and foreign policy. This took place on 28 and 29 June.
	Economic and Monetary Union
	Finally, there was a discussion with European Council President Herman van Rompuy which provided the first opportunity to comment on the Economic and Monetary Union report of the “4 Presidents”, released in the early hours of the morning prior to the meeting and available at:
	http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131201.pdf
	I underlined that while we were still studying the detail, the focus of our work should be on the more immediate next steps to help resolve the problems in the eurozone. I stressed the delicate challenge of reconciling the eurozone’s need for fiscal integration with protecting the integrity of the single market. In this vein, I made clear that while we support a banking union for the eurozone with a single eurozone banking supervisor, the UK will not be part of such supervision.

HEALTH

Abortion Providers (Inspections)

Andrew Lansley: Following reports of potential breaches of the Abortion Act 1967, in March 2012 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) undertook a series of unannounced inspections of all abortion providers. The focus of these inspections was whether abortion certificates (Form HSA1) had
	been signed by doctors before a woman had been seen in the clinic. The law requires two doctors to certify that at least one (and the same) ground for abortion exists in relation to a specific woman.
	At the end of the inspection process, the CQC set up a national quality assurance panel to review findings, judgments and action. The CQC have today published 249 inspection reports on their website, www.cqc.org.uk. Inspectors seized evidence from around a fifth of providers where issues of consistency and completeness of HSA1 forms were identified. Clear evidence of pre-signing was identified in a total of 14 providers and the CQC have required compliance actions be taken by all of these providers to ensure that their practices meet the standards set in law by a set date.
	Investigations by the police, General Medical Council, and Nursing and Midwifery Council continue and further referrals may result from the publication of the CQC reports. We await the outcome of these investigations.
	In the meantime, my officials will work with a number of bodies including the CQC and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to address the findings from these inspections.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust

Andrew Lansley: I wish to inform the House that I have made an order to appoint a trust special administrator to South London Healthcare NHS Trust. The order will be laid in the House shortly with a report setting out the basis of my decision, in accordance with chapter 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006, as introduced by the Health Act 2009.
	My decision is based on the recommendation of the NHS chief executive and the responses to my recent statutory consultation with the trust board, the strategic health authority and local NHS commissioners on the proposal to place the trust in the trust special administrator’s regime. In accordance with the legislation, I have decided it is in the interests of the health service and, in particular, of the patients the trust serves to put South London Healthcare NHS Trust in the trust special administrator’s regime.
	I have appointed Matthew Kershaw as the trust special administrator. Mr Kershaw’s role will take effect on Monday 16 July and I will issue him with terms of appointment. From this point, Mr Kershaw will assume full control of South London Healthcare NHS Trust, replacing the functions of the trust board and assuming the role of the accountable officer. He will be responsible for maintaining services for patients as well as developing recommendations to secure a sustainable future for services provided by the trust for me to consider. At this point, and pending the outcome of the regime, the chair and directors are suspended from their board duties in accordance with the legislation. However, some of the executive and non-executive directors will support the trust special administrator in the work he leads during the regime. How this is organised is a decision for the trust special administrator.
	My key objective for all NHS providers is to ensure they deliver high-quality services to patients that are clinically and financially sustainable for the long term.
	The purpose of the trust special administrator’s regime is to ensure that services provided by any NHS trust subject to the regime meet that objective.
	The regime, included by the last Government in the Health Act 2009, offers a time-limited and transparent framework to provide a rapid resolution to problems within a significantly challenged NHS trust and its health economy. This is to ensure long-term sustainability and the protection of access to quality services for local patients. In addition to maintaining the provision of services during the period of the regime, the duty of a trust special administrator appointed to an NHS trust is to develop and consult locally on a draft report, making recommendations to me in a final report about what should happen to the organisation and the services it provides. The objective is that high-quality, sustainable services are delivered to the local health economy. I must make a final decision based on the recommendations made in the trust special administrator’s final report, publishing that decision and the reasons for it in Parliament.
	The trust special administrator’s regime is not a day-to-day performance management tool for the NHS or a back-door approach to reconfiguration. The purpose is to deliver a rapid and robust process when the widest range of other solutions to improve and maintain sustainability have been tried, implemented and not delivered the results required. It is for this reason that Parliament agreed to set challenging milestones for any appointed trust special administrator and for the Secretary of State to make a final decision about an organisation within a usual maximum period of 120 working days from the date the order is made.
	I am using my powers to extend by order the overall time frame by 30 working days. For South London Healthcare NHS Trust, it means I will make a final decision on the fixture of the organisation within 145 working days from 16 July 2012 and, therefore, by 4 February 2013 at the latest. The issues affecting South London Healthcare NHS Trust are particularly complex; they are long standing and are built on a history of trust mergers, changes in commissioning arrangements and affect a range of providers within the trust’s area. This is also the first time the regime has been used. Therefore, the trust special administrator in this case is starting, effectively, with a blank canvas and will be unable to draw on learning and processes developed by previous trust special administrators.
	Furthermore, the future of services at Orpington are about to be consulted upon, following a public health driven and commissioner-led needs assessment. Extending the time period in which a draft report would be produced by the trust special administrator by 30 working days would allow him to take into account responses to that consultation, so far as they are relevant, as he develops his own recommendations in the draft report, assuming that consultation goes ahead. It is crucial that the first use of the regime is robust and has the greatest possible chance of success. I believe that the particular complexities and issues that affect South London Healthcare NHS Trust, coupled with this being the first ever use of the regime, and the opportunity to take into account responses to the planned consultation on Orpington, mean that this is an exceptional case which warrants an extension to the time frame in the interests of the health economy and, most importantly, the patients of south-east London.
	Despite recent improvements in quality of services and access times, there is a long-standing history of underperformance, particularly around financial management and some key access targets, within the area now served by South London Healthcare NHS Trust. There has been a consistent inability by the trust to deliver high-quality services whilst balancing income with expenditure over the last seven years. A number of solutions have been implemented to attempt to resolve the worsening problems and ensure the NHS in this area can provide consistent quality services to patients and the public within the designated budget. These systemic, long-standing challenges mean that South London Healthcare NHS Trust has historically underperformed against key quality, performance and finance requirements outlined in the national NHS performance management framework. The trust has also failed to make progress towards a viable foundation trust application. In 2011-12, it incurred the largest financial deficit of any of the 248 NHS provider organisations in England, at over £65 million. The deficit equates to an average weekly overspend of £1.3 million of taxpayers’ money on top of an average allocated weekly income of £8.4 million.
	For South London Healthcare NHS Trust, the regime will be used because of the particular nature and scale of the financial and performance challenges, the complex interrelationship, the failure to make the scale of change required in the trust and with its partners and the absence of any viable, alternative strategy to ensure long-term clinical and financial sustainability.
	The trust special administrator, working with clinicians, staff, commissioners, patients and the public, and other stakeholders, must now prepare recommendations for a sustainable solution for South London Healthcare NHS Trust as part of the south-east London health economy. The scale of the challenge means that Mr Kershaw will be expected to engage with, and consider the implications of any recommendations he makes with regard to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust on, other providers. Whilst it is not possible to speculate on the effect any decision may have pending the outcome of the regime, providers in the south London health economy could be affected and will be engaged throughout the process.
	The trust special administrator will also constitute a clinical advisory panel, comprising prominent clinical leaders, to support and advise him in developing his recommendations. This will provide further reassurance that the TSA’s proposals are based on strong clinical evidence and are in the interests of local patients.
	In accordance with my statutory duty, I have published guidance for trust special administrators appointed to NHS trusts, to which they must have regard in undertaking their legal duties. This can be found at: www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/07/statutory-guidance-tsa/
	A copy has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

British Citizenship (War Crimes Screening)

Damian Green: The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011 and the corresponding Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War
	Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011 enable the Secretary of State to subject certain applications to more rigorous scrutiny than she subjects like applications from persons of other nationalities to, for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, or been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
	The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by the Minister for the purpose of the arrangements. I have now reviewed and approved this list in accordance with our commitment to do so annually. I am satisfied that the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.
	The arrangements will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis and will remain in force until revoked.
	A copy of the arrangements is available on the Home Office website via the following link:
	http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/IDIs/idischapter1/section11/annexee8?view=Binary

Criminal Records Bureau

Lynne Featherstone: The 2011-12 annual report and accounts for the Criminal Records Bureau is being laid before the House today and published on the Home Office website. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

Independent Safeguarding Authority

Lynne Featherstone: I am pleased to announce that the annual report 2011-12 and accounts of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) will be laid before Parliament and published today.
	Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

Firearms (England and Wales 2010-11)

Nick Herbert: The latest figures from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 show that:
	The number of police operations in which firearms were authorised was 17,209—a decrease of 1,347 (7%) on the previous year.
	The number of authorised firearms officers (AFO’s) was 6,653—a decrease of 326 (5%) officers overall on the previous year.
	The number of operations involving armed response vehicles was 13,346—a decrease of 743 (6%) on the previous year.
	The Police discharged a conventional firearm in three incidents (down from six incidents in 2009-10).
	Full details are set out in the tables below:
	
		
			 Table 1 – Number of Operations in which Firearms were Authorised. 
			 Year 
			  2002 /0 3 2003/ 0 4 2004/ 0 5 2005/ 0 6 2006/ 0 7 2007/ 0 8 2008/ 0 9 2009/10 2010/11 
			 AVON & SOMERSET 262 311 333 247 285 328 339 267 250 
			 BEDFORDSHIRE 301 442 475 575 663 1,217 1,229 869 1,047 
			 CAMBRIDGESHIRE 57 104 241 201 207 316 460 490 402 
			 CHESHIRE 451 397 358 367 340 317 269 314 244 
			 CLEVELAND 170 453 530 657 293 577 667 430 581 
			 CITY OF LONDON 131 364 404 323 239 365 63 38 64 
			 CUMBRIA 77 72 152 112 92 92 86 80 109 
			 DERBYSHIRE 401 369 287 305 223 211 310 198 179 
			 DEVON & CORNWALL 96 112 71 84 80 143 170 185 189 
			 DORSET 193 231 223 263 354 258 369 351 242 
			 DURHAM 83 156 144 291 340 206 181 140 205 
			 ESSEX 312 275 296 432 245 529 529 444 384 
			 GLOUCESTERSHIRE 185 127 176 229 280 162 132 175 133 
			 GTR MANCHESTER 518 507 461 478 481 497 524 415 360 
			 HAMPSHIRE 162 208 237 289 352 382 362 292 360 
			 HERTFORDSHIRE 172 195 185 187 280 303 343 205 334 
			 HUMBERSIDE 187 183 206 362 235 209 123 133 166 
			 KENT 137 207 163 219 170 202 280 275 213 
			 LANCASHIRE 238 318 241 240 410 388 281 245 169 
			 LEICESTERSHIRE 268 295 260 363 334 318 347 280 196 
			 LINCOLNSHIRE 392 386 294 220 157 158 133 73 97 
			 MERSEYSIDE 628 751 733 669 727 829 556 701 663 
			 METROPOLITAN 3,199 3,563 2,964 4,711 3,878 4,948 5,044 5,534 4,672 
			 NORFOLK 200 178 195 175 153 174 274 192 252 
			 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 138 148 158 137 156 159 120 109 129 
			 NORTHUMBRIA 1,275 1,140 977 611 332 229 154 156 167 
			 NORTH YORKSHIRE 100 147 185 183 282 329 289 272 228 
			 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 452 459 408 394 289 270 245 194 279 
			 SOUTH YORKSHIRE 463 484 546 749 737 628 538 533 434 
			 STAFFORDSHIRE 281 255 216 171 250 244 209 183 231 
			 SUFFOLK 270 251 153 202 256 193 237 225 227 
			 SURREY 247 203 151 222 222 375 479 188 162 
			 SUSSEX 204 280 187 190 201 331 331 227 205 
			 THAMES VALLEY 167 195 289 427 264 293 344 319 257 
			 WARWICKSHIRE 149 164 124 180 162 150 145 129 93 
			 WEST MERCIA 91 197 162 122 155 202 171 122 98 
			 WEST MIDLANDS(1) 902 1,377 1,264 1,044 1,557 1,063 1,109 933 750 
			 WEST YORKSHIRE 604 575 853 1,335 1,272 1,130 1,367 1,512 1,344 
			 WILTSHIRE 58 63 88 139 226 128 158 152 86 
			 DYFED POWYS 29 28 51 63 72 155 92 71 91 
			 GWENT 37 40 81 94 133 334 152 151 139 
			 NORTH WALES 259 197 223 350 340 259 185 126 182 
			 SOUTH WALES 281 250 236 279 308 293 555 628 596 
			 TOTAL 14,827 16,657 15,981 18,891 18,032 19,894 19,951 18,556 17,209 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2 – Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) 
			 Year 
			  2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 
			 AVON & SOMERSET 84 122 118 117 103 123 127 124 129 
			 BEDFORDSHIRE 53 58 56 59 57 53 50 54 55 
			 CAMBRIDGESHIRE 71 60 60 50 46 49 51 45 46 
			 CHESHIRE 89 75 76 73 80 72 88 95 87 
			 CLEVELAND 80 95 100 100 105 97 83 72 74 
			 CITY OF LONDON 72 86 89 86 45 49 50 51 53 
			 CUMBRIA 87 89 90 89 90 97 86 91 92 
			 DERBYSHIRE 69 70 74 75 69 61 61 71 65 
			 DEVON & CORNWALL 115 132 123 122 132 142 146 157 146 
			 DORSET 59 60 64 62 67 71 79 65 62 
		
	
	
		
			 DURHAM 102 97 103 100 102 89 82 81 70 
			 ESSEX 184 186 202 205 220 225 223 223 207 
			 GLOUCESTERSHIRE 80 82 93 92 94 95 97 108 102 
			 GTR MANCHESTER 202 205 187 245 217 250 296 237 227 
			 HAMPSHIRE 94 94 92 97 83 85 93 96 87 
			 HERTFORDSHIRE 47 50 53 52 49 53 50 46 47 
			 HUMBERSIDE 96 96 101 92 83 87 80 77 72 
			 KENT 93 90 94 94 98 87 110 103 97 
			 LANCASHIRE 129 122 115 123 103 143 105 94 92 
			 LEICESTERSHIRE 68 51 53 59 67 64 73 76 71 
			 LINCOLNSHIRE 87 78 86 87 75 77 69 60 71 
			 MERSEYSIDE 84 94 93 129 139 153 154 141 127 
			 METROPOLITAN 1,823 2,060 2,134 2,331 2,584 2,530 2,740 2,856 2,665 
			 NORFOLK 109 114 125 119 127 114 106 111 112 
			 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 56 52 50 56 59 53 50 55 50 
			 NORTHUMBRIA 99 90 93 98 92 96 95 102 96 
			 NORTH YORKSHIRE 64 60 56 78 67 67 63 64 72 
			 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 131 138 138 149 146 137 133 91 98 
			 SOUTH YORKSHIRE 100 98 122 116 118 106 99 102 86 
			 STAFFORDSHIRE 63 67 76 70 82 82 75 85 81 
			 SUFFOLK 80 96 88 84 78 74 67 68 79 
			 SURREY 48 53 49 51 45 54 54 60 56 
			 SUSSEX 141 134 130 129 129 123 123 114 129 
			 THAMES VALLEY 180 172 176 180 186 180 180 193 194 
			 WARWICKSHIRE 51 46 53 55 59 63 66 76 60 
			 WEST MERCIA(2) 131 139 141 152 133 163 137 115 132 
			 WEST MIDLANDS 110 124 134 145 175 177 165 180 167 
			 WEST YORKSHIRE 132 140 130 150 148 147 135 156 140 
			 WILTSHIRE 78 80 74 72 69 67 74 69 65 
			 DYFED POWYS 62 58 79 68 72 67 63 64 72 
			 GWENT 60 71 74 86 64 63 54 61 59 
			 NORTH WALES 75 73 65 57 56 57 53 76 57 
			 SOUTH WALES 125 139 134 130 115 138 121 114 104 
			 TOTAL 5,763 6,096 6,243 6,584 6,728 6,780 6,868 6,979 6,653 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 3 – Number of Operations Involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) 
			  Year 
			  2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 
			 AVON & SOMERSET 215 249 312 167 192 292 231 137 135 
			 BEDFORDSHIRE 269 414 419 534 639 1,171 1,188 819 991 
			 CAMBRIDGESHIRE 45 155 172 160 172 221 366 393 307 
			 CHESHIRE(3) 337 356 773 807 793 642 221  244 
			 CLEVELAND 63 86 154 285 290 554 661 426 481 
			 CITY OF LONDON 131 364 275 234 183 200 63 32 63 
			 CUMBRIA 45 65 134 90 72 74 56 51 75 
			 DERBYSHIRE 363 312 254 257 183 187 252 169 141 
			 DEVON & CORNWALL 32 94 54 54 76 120 138 168 174 
			 DORSET 180 215 195 246 322 238 347 349 200 
			 DURHAM 66 96 91 256 204 192 164 140 204 
			 ESSEX 176 138 138 155 224 226 391 273 187 
			 GLOUCESTERSHIRE 166 109 121 145 213 147 120 100 78 
			 GTR MANCHESTER 406 440 364 306 214 196 460 292 288 
			 HAMPSHIRE 108 128 167 178 270 271 247 194 312 
			 HERTFORDSHIRE 129 157 155 160 226 262 311 182 286 
			 HUMBERSIDE 170 158 184 335 232 183 94 111 115 
			 KENT 132 193 124 183 373 364 325 227 203 
			 LANCASHIRE 185 273 228 232 383 313 279 239 166 
		
	
	
		
			 LEICESTERSHIRE 232 269 232 328 313 268 332 263 180 
			 LINCOLNSHIRE 367 355 276 210 147 153 128 63 89 
			 MERSEYSIDE 547 687 677 611 644 734 445 631 491 
			 METROPOLITAN 2,447 2,423 2,322 2,572 2,770 2,303 3,283 3,563 2,912 
			 NORFOLK 186 169 163 149 133 165 252 176 217 
			 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 90 99 89 101 119 127 117 88 104 
			 NORTHUMBRIA 1,204 1,063 893 585 299 199 129 134 112 
			 NORTH YORKSHIRE 67 110 144 208 268 318 287 267 210 
			 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 397 404 336 342 256 246 197 175 220 
			 SOUTH YORKSHIRE 280 322 438 632 522 493 387 325 307 
			 STAFFORDSHIRE 241 212 183 154 222 231 192 155 224 
			 SUFFOLK 160 194 119 149 204 148 206 189 166 
			 SURREY 240 190 140 204 209 380 469 174 155 
			 SUSSEX 171 250 163 162 165 311 248 177 175 
			 THAMES VALLEY 167 179 265 355 227 254 292 272 225 
			 WARWICKSHIRE 31 138 102 144 121 113 100 92 73 
			 WEST MERCIA 111 241 152 94 120 121 128 148 93 
			 WEST MIDLANDS(1) 592 975 952 745 518 716 739 689 597 
			 WEST YORKSHIRE 565 543 656 1,040 1,048 1,098 1,361 1,203 1,163 
			 WILTSHIRE 39 28 54 124 190 359 499 120 49 
			 DYFED POWYS 29 28 48 55 72 135 80 59 71 
			 GWENT 16 23 74 85 109 257 138 147 131 
			 NORTH WALES 198 153 180 299 295 221 156 107 165 
			 SOUTH WALES 253 161 165 223 283 222 485 570 567 
			 TOTAL 11,848 13,218 13,137 14,355 14,515 15,425 16,564 14,089 13,346 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 4 – Number of Incidents where Conventional Firearms were Discharged 
			 Year 
			  2002/03 2003/ 0 4 2004/ 0 5 2005/ 0 6 2006/ 0 7 2007/ 0 8 2008/ 0 9 2009/10 2010/11 
			 Incidents 10 4 5 9 3 7 5 6 3 
			 % of incidents compared with number of authorised operations 0.067 0.024 0.031 0.048 0.017 0.033 0.025 0.032 0.00017 
		
	
	Source: Association of Chief Police Officers
	(Does not include discharges for animal destruction or during police training)
	Notes for tables:
	1. Revised figure for 2007/08 from West Midlands Police.
	2. Revised figure for 2008/09 from West Mercia Constabulary.
	3. Cheshire did not record ARV operations for 2009/10.
	Source: Home Office Public Order Unit, based on information aggregated from figures provided by individual police forces as part of the Home Office annual data requirement. This was followed by a further quality assurance process involving the Home Office asking individual forces to verify and sign off their figures.
	The information provided is a regular annual update of figures previously published and available on the Home Office website here:
	http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/firearms/index.html
	Home Office guidance to forces for providing these figures is contained within the booklet Annual Data Requirement, Police Personnel and Performance Data, Notes for Guidance. For the purpose of this statistical return AFOs are deemed to be deployed when “
	“they are required to conduct a specific task during which their possession of a firearm (with appropriate authorisation) is a required element” [Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1 ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms].
	In addition to the total number of operations, a further sub-category is required regarding those operations where the initial or sole response is by Armed Response Vehicle (ARV).
	Each incident will be classed as only one operation regardless of the number of personnel/deployments or tactics employed to deal with the incident.
	Deployments also include those incidents where AFOs “self-authorise”.
	The number of officers authorised to use firearms as at 31 March 2011.

UK Border Agency

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency annual report and accounts 2011-12 will be laid before the House today. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

JUSTICE

Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010

Jonathan Djanogly: In response to the written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) about the commencement of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (UIN 98039)—5 March 2012, Official Report, column 537W —I undertook to make a further statement before the summer recess.
	The position remains that no date has yet been set to bring the Act into force. The Ministry of Justice is continuing to work with interested parties to prepare the way for commencement at the earliest practicable date. As stated in the report on the implementation of Law Commission proposals (HC 1900) presented by the Lord Chancellor to Parliament on 22 March 2012 this is unlikely to be until 2013.
	I will make a further statement in the autumn.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

Public Reading Stage and Explanatory Statements on Amendments (Pilot)

George Young: I am today announcing a pilot of the Government’s Public Reading Stage system for the Small Charitable Donations Bill.
	Lobby groups, industry and other third parties, who tend to have a close understanding of the legislative process, already actively engage as a Bill goes through its various stages in Parliament. But there are thousands of other private citizens who may have expertise in a certain area but either do not know how to or are unwilling to use the current channels to get involved in providing MPs with their views. Public Reading Stage will allow us to end up with more open and better laws by harnessing the experience of the public.
	A trial of a Public Reading Stage was undertaken for the Protection of Freedoms Bill in the previous session of this Parliament. Following an evaluation, my Office has worked with the Government Digital Service to develop a new, simple digital platform that allows members of the public to read the Government’s proposed Bill and related information, comment on specific clauses and to make suggested amendments. The site can be visited at: http://publicreadingstage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk.
	It is the intention that a normal Public Reading Stage would run for around three weeks, from First Reading to seven days before a Public Bill Committee meets for the first time. In reflection of the pilot status of this stage and the natural interval that the summer recess provides, the site will be open for six weeks, until 23 August 2012, allowing the greatest possible number of comments to be made. Following this, officials in HM Treasury will collate these into a report to be presented to the Public Bill Committee and made available in the Vote Office and online.
	I intend to bring forward proposals later in the session for a second Public Reading Stage pilot, following an evaluation of the Small Charitable Donations Bill Public Reading Stage.
	The evaluation will consider:
	The volume of comments received and their relevance to the legislation.
	Any amendments proposed to or made to the legislation in response to specific comments.
	The reception of the Public Committee and the whole House at report stage to the comments.
	Any other feedback received from contributors to the site and Members of Parliament who contributed to scrutiny of the Bill.
	I would also like to remind the House that the Small Charitable Donations Bill will be the second of the pilots for the tabling of explanatory statements to amendments, covering both Public Bill Committee stage and report stage, as I set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 May 2012, Official Report, column 72WS.
	The Government intend to continue to participate fully in the pilot, and I would encourage all Members who table amendments at both Public Bill Committee stage and report stage to take part.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Boundary Commission

Owen Paterson: I have today placed a copy of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland’s annual report for the period 2011-12 in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available on the Boundary Commission website at: www.boundarycommission.org.uk.

PRIME MINISTER

Intelligence and Security Committee (Annual Report)

David Cameron: I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its valuable work and its latest annual report (Cm. 8403). Following consultation with the Committee over matters that could not be published without prejudicing the work of the intelligence and security agencies, I have today laid the report before the House.
	The Government’s response to this report will be laid before the House after the summer recess.
	Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRANSPORT

Aviation Policy Framework

Justine Greening: In March 2011, the Government launched a scoping exercise towards developing a new sustainable policy framework for UK aviation. I am grateful to the more than 600 organisations and individuals who responded. We have given careful consideration to their responses in preparing the draft aviation policy framework consultation document, which I am publishing today.
	The responses to the scoping exercise reflected a wide degree of consensus on aviation’s significant economic contribution and its other benefits, that its global and local environmental impacts are real and need to be tackled effectively and that maintaining the UK’s excellent
	international connectivity is critical. The consultation document sets out the Government’s high-level policy in each of these areas and seeks views on some of the measures we propose in support of our approach.
	We clearly recognise the value of aviation as an important economic sector in its own right and as a key driver of UK economic growth. It contributes around £17 billion of economic output and employs over 220,000 workers directly and many more indirectly. And we recognise the strength of the UK’s aviation connections which give us the third largest aviation network after the US and China and make London one of the best connected cities in the world with direct links to over 360 destinations worldwide, more than either Paris or Frankfurt.
	The Government have a package of measures underway to improve the passenger experience at our airports and make the best use of existing capacity, as well as taking forward a process to address the UK’s international connectivity needs in the medium and longer term.
	First, we are improving efficiency at our borders. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is reviewing the UK’s visa regime, to improve the passenger experience and to ensure that our border policy supports our prosperity agenda whilst maintaining effective security. Any changes to the UK’s visa regime will be implemented during the course of 2013. The Home Office has also brought forward the recruitment of 70 additional staff at Heathrow to provide additional flexibility to secure the border while dealing with increased passenger numbers. And it is looking at how we can improve the role of automation in the expedited clearance of passengers, linked to the development of a registered traveller scheme to replace the current IRIS scheme which has been extended.
	We are improving reliability and reducing delay at Heathrow through the trial of measures introducing greater operational flexibility. If operational freedoms show clear benefits in terms of resilience, reducing delays and allowing planes to land more effectively, thereby reducing the impact of noise for residents under the flight path, then we will consult on making these benefits permanent.
	We are taking forward other recommendations of the South East Airports Taskforce, such as airport performance charters which will set out the level of service that airlines and their passengers should expect, as well as new guidelines developed in a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) chaired industry group which will make the best use of existing capacity.
	We are transforming the economic regulation of airports through our Civil Aviation Bill to promote passengers’ interests. We propose to replace the current uniform approach to regulation—where designated airports are subject to mandatory five-year price caps—with a modern licensing regime where licence conditions can be tailored to the specific circumstances facing individual airports. By allowing for more proportionate regulation, the new regime also enables the CAA to take steps to reduce the degree or scope of economic regulation imposed on individual airports if they decide this would benefit passengers. The Bill will also ensure that airports can respond more flexibly to real-time events such as severe weather or volcanic ash and put in place a long-term framework for improving quality of service and investing in better infrastructure and facilities. The Bill is on
	track to receive Royal Assent by spring 2013 and we expect the new licensing regime to be implemented from April 2014.
	We are improving surface access to airports with significant new investment. In total over this spending review period the Government are supporting investment of £1.4 billion on rail and road schemes which will directly or indirectly benefit airports across the UK.
	This includes a fleet of 30 new electric trains on the Stansted Express to London which entered service last year and a £53 million upgrade of Gatwick airport station with improved passenger facilities, an extra platform and more track and signalling by 2013 and a regional growth fund contribution of £19.5 million for junction enhancements to be completed by 2014 which will improve access from the Ml to Luton airport.
	And the Metrolink extension to Manchester airport is due to open in 2016 which will provide a tram every 12 minutes between Manchester airport and Manchester city centre.
	In the future, Luton and Gatwick will receive improved rail services through the Thameslink programme and we expect Heathrow passengers to benefit from Crossrail.
	But we recognise that we need to go further now in enhancing the capability of UK airports, particularly in the south east. So today we are also announcing:
	The commitment of up to £500 million towards a western rail link to Heathrow, subject to a business case and conclusion of agreements with the aviation industry. This recognises the continued importance of Heathrow as our major international hub.
	Businesses west of the airport have been calling for this vital investment for many years. It will cut typically 30 minutes off the journey to Heathrow from the west of England and south Wales, with significant benefits for growing cities like Swindon, Bristol and Cardiff. The service could come into operation as early as 2021. I will shortly publish a rail investment strategy, which will recognise the importance of transport investment to the economy, including improving connectivity between cities and airports.
	Proposals to further liberalise the UK aviation market to encourage foreign airlines to develop new routes by extending to Gatwick and Stansted the ability for foreign airlines to pick up passengers when flying to other destinations.
	Our proposal to remove bilateral restrictions on air services on a case-by-case basis. This will mean open access to airports outside the South East for new air services, in order to facilitate inward investment in new routes and extra choice for business and passengers without necessarily having to secure reciprocal access for UK airlines to the airports of the other country.
	Our commitment, building on the Olympics and the GREAT brand, to develop a new marketing package, working with BIS, UKTI, and others to market the benefits of flying to a range of UK airports and to target new carriers, particularly carriers in emerging markets such as Latin America, India and south-east Asia.
	That we will work with airports to explore, with the US authorities and others, the feasibility of US pre-clearance facilities being made available in the UK, which could improve the competitive offer airports operating such a scheme would be able to make.
	That we will invite train companies to explore the potential of “code-sharing” between flights and long-distance train services, to enhance competition between trains and domestic flights.
	Our intention to identify options, within the EU legislative framework, aimed at ensuring that slots at our congested airports are used in the most economically beneficial way for the UK. The focus of this work is on seeking to optimise the functioning of the secondary trading market for airport slots. We expect to engage with key stakeholders later in the summer and publish a progress report in the autumn. We are also working with the EU, in the context of the Commission’s proposals on reform of the rules on landing slots to secure measures to support UK regional connectivity, such as protecting the provision of air services between Northern Ireland and Heathrow.
	Our support for the introduction of new rules by airport operators aimed at maximising the use of existing capacity at our busiest airports—for example, by limiting access to smaller planes.
	In doing so, we recognise the very substantial efforts the aviation industry is making in continuing to invest and respond to the market.
	For example, Heathrow and Gatwick are investing £5 billion and £1 billion respectively over the next few years in better infrastructure and Birmingham airport will shortly begin constructing a £65 million runway extension which will increase the airport’s scope to open new routes to long-haul destinations.
	Airlines are launching new routes to key emerging markets, such as British Airways who recently announced a new service to Seoul. China Southern Airlines is now flying from Heathrow to Guangzhou and Gatwick is showing its potential, for example with Air China’s new service to Beijing.
	These are positive developments and will help to maintain the UK’s excellent international aviation connectivity in the short term. The Government recognise, however, that they must not only take steps for the short term but also address the issue of fixture airport capacity and we are committed to doing so.
	Following our scoping exercise last year, our draft aviation policy framework is the next step towards that and we welcome responses to this consultation. We will follow this, later this year, by issuing an open call for evidence inviting stakeholders to submit specific, evidence-based proposals for consideration in identifying the medium and long-term steps needed to meet the Government’s economic and environmental objectives for aviation. This is a structured process towards delivering a solution that is sustainable, not only economically and environmentally but also politically. The failure of successive Governments to tackle this issue shows that we need to get it right this time. Success depends upon agreeing a solution that can be delivered regardless of the political cycle and that requires an objective evidence-based process which draws on the views of the full range of interested parties.

High Speed Rail (Property Compensation)

Justine Greening: In January I announced the Government would proceed with plans to build a high speed rail network linking
	London with Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. This is a vital project that will create jobs, drive economic growth and provide a solution to the capacity crunch facing our existing rail network. Work on the project continues apace and I will be publishing my preferred routes for the second phase of the project in the autumn.
	Alongside January’s decision I confirmed my intention to deliver a generous compensation package for those affected by the route which goes over and above the minimum required by law.
	I am acutely aware of the impact that the proposals for HS2 are having on the property markets along the line of route from London to the west midlands. The impacts on property are some of the most direct and personal effects of HS2. This is why we have committed to going above and beyond the statutory requirements for property compensation.
	Developing the right property compensation package is complex as it needs to be fair to those living and working along the HS2 London to west midlands route while recognising our broader responsibility to the taxpayer. It was clear from the responses to the consultation that we held last year that property compensation was an issue that generated a considerable amount of understandable concern from those affected. In addition, from personally dealing with the casework from the operation of the existing exceptional hardship scheme, I recognise the range and complexity of issues that the property and compensation package for HS2 will need to deal with. This all means that it is imperative that we put in place the right package.
	I am keen to consult as soon as possible to provide people with certainty but, given the nature of the issue and its implications for phase 2 and work to assess stations and route options, it is clear to me that the detailed work to fully assess options means that we will consult on the property and compensation package for HS2 after Parliament returns from its summer recess in September. I understand that this delay will not be welcomed by individuals and businesses who had hoped to see an earlier resolution to the uncertainty surrounding HS2 property and compensation policies. However, this will enable the Government to put forward a comprehensive, practical and affordable package of property and compensation measures. I will be writing to those likely to be most directly affected by the project to explain this change.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Sure Start Maternity Grants

Steve Webb: I am pleased to announce that later today we intend to lay regulations to extend entitlement to Sure Start maternity grants.
	It is our intention that the scheme be extended to provide for payment of a Sure Start maternity grant where there is already a child under the age of 16 in the family, and there is a subsequent multiple birth.
	This change recognises that even where there are already children in the family, additional items will be needed where there is a subsequent multiple birth and a Sure Start maternity grant will be provided for these requirements.
	The further extension of these rules will be due to come into effect for multiple births expected on or after 29 October 2012.

Independent Living Fund

Maria Miller: In December 2010, the Government announced that the independent living fund (ILF) would not continue to run as a discretionary trust in parallel to the mainstream social care system. The system was poorly structured, leading to unnecessary complexity, duplication of some functions and an unjustifiable geographical variation in take-up. This was followed by the temporary closure of the fund to new users in 2010 when it became clear that insufficient funding had been made available to the fund by the previous Government.
	The Government have committed to protect the programme budget for existing ILF users until the end of this Parliament in 2015 and committed to carry out a formal consultation on how support could be made available in the future.
	In the care and support White Paper “Caring for our future: reforming care and support”, published this week, the Government have set out their plans for reforming care and support in England. This includes building on the progress that has been made in giving disabled people greater choice and control through the new legal right to a personal budget. It is in this context that we have considered how the future needs of ILF users can be met.
	In a consultation document to be published today, the Government are proposing that funding is devolved to local government in England and to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales from April 2015. This will ensure that the needs of all ILF users are met within a single cohesive statutory system in line with local priorities and local authorities’ broader independent living strategies. The Government recognise the role that the ILF has played since it was created for a transitional five year period in 1988, but believe that transformed policy context means that to maintain a parallel funding stream for the provision of care and support for disabled people would perpetuate inequity in the system.
	The consultation will last for 12 weeks and be on a UK-wide basis given the implications of the closure of the fund for all parts of the United Kingdom. It will be important that we get the views of as wide a range of interested individuals and organisations as possible, in particular ILF users and their carers, their families, local authorities and the many organisations that support disabled people in living independently.

Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

Chris Grayling: In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s guidance on public bodies, which took effect from 1 April 2011, a review of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) was undertaken. It examined the council’s functions and whether it should exist at arm’s length from
	Government and ensured the council’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. The review is now complete and I am happy to inform the House that reviewers concluded the IIAC remain as an arm’s length body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions and that it continues to meet the recognised principles of good governance. At the same time and in the interests of proportionality and value for money, IIAC was reviewed as a Scientific Advisory Committee. I will place a copy of the combined review in the House Library.

Social Fund and Social Fund Commissioner (Annual Reports)

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State’s annual report on the social fund for 2011-12 is to be laid before Parliament and published later today.
	The report records that total gross expenditure in 2011-12, excluding winter fuel payments, was over £940 million. This figure includes over 216,000 non-repayable community care grants and almost 3.2 million interest-free loans awarded worth over £581 million. Also, cold weather payments worth £129 million, funeral payments worth £46 million and Sure Start maternity grants worth £45 million, were paid.
	In addition over nine million households benefited from a winter fuel payment at an estimated cost of around £2.1 billion.
	The Social Fund Commissioner’s report will also be published later today, and I will place a copy of this report in the House Library.

State Pensions Reform

Steve Webb: I should like to inform the House about the progress this coalition Government are making with their plans for state pensions reform.
	At Budget 2012, the Chancellor confirmed that we will reform the state pension system to introduce a simpler, single tier state pension for future pensioners to better support saving for retirement. A simple flat-rate state pension above the basic level of the means test will bring much needed clarity and simplicity to the pension system, and provide the foundation needed to support automatic enrolment into workplace pensions, enabling people to save for their retirement with confidence. The reforms will be introduced in the next Parliament and will not cost any more than the current system overall.
	The Budget also confirmed that the Government will introduce a mechanism so that future increases in state pension age take changes in longevity into account.
	Together, these reforms will deliver a state pension system that is fit for the 21st century.
	Given the scale, complexity and importance of these two significant reforms we are still working on the details, to ensure we get them right. Therefore, we will
	set out further detail on both the single tier reform and state pension age review mechanism in a White Paper in the autumn.

Universal Credit

Maria Miller: Universal credit has been designed to ensure that people are better off in work. The benefit will be for claimants both in and out of work, and will enable a smooth transition into work.
	Universal credit will improve work incentives as financial support will be reduced at a consistent and predictable rate for claimants moving into work or increasing their working hours. People will generally keep a higher proportion of their earnings. The intention is that any work pays, in particular, low-hours work. Reducing the complexity of the current system and removing the distinction between in-work and out-of-work support, will make clear the potential gains to work and reduce the risks associated with moves into employment.
	The new in-work incentives of universal credit mean that some current measures are not needed. To this effect, I am announcing today that the Government intend to end the following payments to prepare the ground for the introduction of universal credit. The payments will be removed beforehand to aid a smoother migration into the new system.
	Job grant; a one-off payment made to eligible claimants who leave benefits to start work. Claimants must have been on benefits for at least 26 weeks.
	In-work credit; a weekly payment made to eligible lone parents who leave benefits to start work. Claimants must have been on benefits for at least one year and can receive payments for up to 52 weeks.
	Return-to-work credit; a weekly payment made to eligible claimants with a health condition or disability who leave benefits to start work. Claimants must have been on benefits for at least 13 weeks and can receive payments for up to 52 weeks.
	Under universal credit, in-work support will be part of the benefit system. In this context, we do not believe that cash payments based solely on the amount of time
	a person has spent on benefit regardless of actual need make sense. Universal credit will provide in-work incentives to all who receive it rather than these specific groups and allow us to target help more effectively.
	These payments will start to be phased out for new benefit claimants from October 2012; payments can continue into 2013 for those eligible. Further information will be made available shortly for those affected.

Work Capability Assessment

Chris Grayling: Later today the Government will publish a call for evidence as part of Professor Malcolm Harrington’s third independent review of the work capability assessment (WCA).
	Professor Harrington’s first two reviews were published in November 2010 and November 2011. His overall view was that the principle of the WCA was sound but the processes that supported the system were not working as well as they could. The Department have made a number of changes to the WCA process as a result of the recommendations made by Professor Harrington in his reviews. These were noted in his 2011 review when he said:
	“The WCA has, in my view, noticeably changed for the better”.
	The call for evidence is one of several methods Professor Harrington is using to gather information to support the review and inform its final recommendations. He is particularly interested in views and evidence about any changes that claimants have experienced since the introduction of the first year’s recommendations.
	The call for evidence runs until 7 September 2012.
	Professor Harrington will make his final recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by the end of the year.
	I will place a copy of the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses it will also be available on the Department’s website later today.